Responsiveness to the elected government was a key theme of the watershed report of the Coombs Commission into Australian Government administration in the mid-70s, and was generally understood in terms of how the Government’s intentions were translated into policy.
What we are seeing today is a determination by the Government to have greater influence on the timely and effective delivery of their policy interventions. Governments want to see some ‘bang for their bucks’—clear improvements as a result of their interventions. They do not want to see their money fritted away or unspent through poor planning or bureaucratic time wasting or incompetence. Indeed, Peter Shergold said last week that ‘[e]very government knows that its future depends not only on how wisely it makes decisions but on how effectively its public service delivers them’.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Australian Government has moved to push for a greater focus on Government outcomes and to make some important structural changes at the delivery end.
It has established the Cabinet Implementation Unit, within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to encourage earlier and more effective planning for implementation of public policy decisions delivered through government programs and services.
It is implementing the findings of the Uhrig Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders to clarify lines of accountability between agencies and Ministers and relationships between agencies and their portfolio departments.
What we are seeing here is a determination to get the right governance arrangements in place, as a foundation for improved delivery and implementation of the Government’s policy initiatives. This is not a shift away from devolution, but an enhancement, with a focus on achieving better results for the Australian community within a devolved environment.
To this end, in 2004 the Government created the Department of Human Services, which brings together six agencies, as a means to improve co-ordination between them, improve their responsiveness to Government direction, and to raise the quality of the services they deliver. The Prime Minister said at that time:
[O]ne of the things we lack in the public service both at a Commonwealth and a State level is a consolidated focus on the efficient and timely and sympathetic delivery of services. We tend to look at service delivery as an afterthought rather than as a policy priority.
Of course, the political interest in the nuts and bolts of public administration is not limited to Australia. In the UK recently the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee launched an inquiry into the place of strategy and planning in government. It will explore, among other things, whether strategic planning is too centralised, or not centralised enough; how people are best trained to carry out strategic planning; and whether Parliament should have a greater role in the strategic planning process.
It raises in my mind that classic question of when is it appropriate to bring project management skills into the policy process? I guess, the answer must surely be, as soon as possible—the two are, after all, part of a wider program management continuum.